Archives

About Victor Alexander

The law firm of Victor Alexander, Jr. P.C., has been successfully representing Georgians suffering a loss of quality of life due to an accident or injury for more than three decades. Let us help you obtain the medical and income benefits you need for your Workers’ Compensation or Personal Injury claim.

In Glen Oaks Turf, Inc. v. Butler 191 Ga. App. 840, 383 S.E.2d 203 (1989), the Court of Appeals Addressed the issue of whether or not an employee was a farm laborer under the definition of the act and, as such, not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed and found that it was undisputed that the claimant was engaged only in the business of farming and therefore was a farm laborer. The Court of Appeals cited Larson’s on Workers’ Compensation, Section 53.33, Pages 9-205 (1986).

A workers’ compensation claimant injured his eye which required a surgical procedure to remove a cataract and implant a permanent lens. Before the accident claimant apparently had 20/20 vision but after the implant his vision improved to 20/40 vision with a lens implant and if he wore glasses his vision was 20/20. In this case it was concluded that the claimant’s injury and total recovery should be based on 100% disability to the eye. See Dunn v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 81 Ga. App. 283, 58 S.E.2d 245 (1950). Georgia Casualty Insurety Co. v. Wesby, 119 Ga. App. 545, 168 S.E.2d 191 (1969). Georgia Casualty & Surety Co. v. Feller, 122 Ga. App. 457, 177 S.E.2d 487 (1970).

Even though claimant claims she sustained an eye injury when a light fixture broke, splattering glass into her face, the ophthalmologist determined that there was not any factor or injury to her eye. A Full Board and ALJ took the word of claimant that she sustained an eye injury and found a compensable accident. Applying the any evidence rule on appeal, a Court of Appeals affirmed. See Fulton DeKalb Hospital Authority v. Hadley, 174 Ga. App. 503, 330 S.E.2d 432 (1985).

Claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits for loss of use of his left eye. Court of Appeals held that claimant who had a visual acuity of 20/400 (industrially blind) without glasses following the accident was entitled to compensation benefits even though he had 20/20 vision wearing glasses following lens implant surgery. See Lee Connell Construction Co. v. Swann, 172 Ga. App. 305, 322 S.E.2d 736 (1984).